Why do gamers worship these processors? Games are not 64-bit just now, so why shell out the extra money for an overpriced CPU which will make no difference in games? It's far from being a minimum specification, and 64-bit games are a good few years down the line. Save your money and buy it later, because the AMD64 you have in your "1337 rigs" just now will be hopelessly out of date by the time games go 64-bit.

It's the gamers that love these CPU's, but why? I've been playing games on a 32-bit Intel for years and years and get identical performance to an AMD (I've used both). My friend's got an AMD64 3800+ with the same components as I've got (I've got an Intel P4 3.2Ghz), no difference in performance. So why pay £400+ for something which isn't that special?

In actual fact, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit CPU could potentially hinder performance, as the processor is looking for 32 extra bits which aren't there which slows everything down a little bit.

Sure, 64-bit CPUs have their uses, but not in games IMHO.

__________________

__________________
Master of common sense. If you don't like it, stop reading.

I think it comes more down to how they are built that redeems performance and the 64bit CPU's have alot more going on behind closed doors, for instance the new process (90nm, etc) and are actually faster in games than any other AMD processor because of a few factors like this.

So even though it is capable of 64bit processing, going to another processor just because 64bit hasn't set off yet doesn't make sense, as the 64bit AMD processors have improved alot more over the original CPU's than just the name provides.

Plus, when 64bit does set off, i'd assume it'd be programs that'd take advantage of it first, and these processors won't be too slow to perform on them, and should do very well.
I doubt speeds of processors will go too up in the future anyway, but we'll be seeing more processors joined, etc.

As for the games part though.
AMD didn't make this processor to be good at games, as it just happened that way, so saying theres no point getting 64bit because games won't make use of it is useless, as mentioned above.

When Windows Viesta comes out, I assume the 64bit processors of now will be fast enough to run it, which is whats important, and won't have to change processors to a 64bit one when this happens, when people have it already.
You may also find that earlier AMD Athlon boards use a different socket number, so you'd also end up buying a new motherboard.

amd = cheaper then intel my furry friend . They can both do both, but many gamers do prefer amd for games because they do offer better architechture that results in better peformance in games. I see a huge difference from my p4 2.6 ghz to my amd 2.2 64 bit.

plus, amd is leading the pack right now when it comes to 64 bit computing and also dual core technology. Intel doesn't even come close in their dual core entry, the Pentium D. while the amd x2 processors are kicking ass all over the place. same with the 64 bit processors. so if you want to be left behind....keep using intel. if you want to be the leader of the pack, switch to amd.

__________________
When all else fails...Ham Radio!

I still have the same old HP DV9700T laptop I've had for years...still kickin'

AMD's chips give excellent performance and are usually cheaper than Intel. Dedicated gamers looking for speed and future performance may want to the Athlon 64 chips. The Athlon 64 can address a terabyte of RAM and handle difficult calculations with no effort. Demanding games require a lot of processing power and are designed to run more efficiently on a 64bit platform.

Athlon 64 also changes the way data are transferred. Where P4s rely on the motherboard chipset to move data between processor and memory, Athlon 64s avoid this bottleneck by integrating the memory controller onto the CPU die. This does away with the traditional front side bus design favoured by Intel, and allows the processor to communicate directly with the physical memory through a two way hyper transport link.

The full benefits of a 64 bit system cannot be realised until 64 bit operating systems become more common. Athlon 64 is still the most efficient processor desptite of that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with video cards becoming extremely powerful, isn't the processor becoming less important now? As far as gaming goes, wouldn't you benefit more from upgrading to a top-line video card rather than upgrading to a top-line processor. I'm all for the AMD processors, but it seems as though there is a shift taking place to where the video card is taking more of the gaming load than the processor is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with video cards becoming extremely powerful, isn't the processor becoming less important now? As far as gaming goes, wouldn't you benefit more from upgrading to a top-line video card rather than upgrading to a top-line processor. I'm all for the AMD processors, but it seems as though there is a shift taking place to where the video card is taking more of the gaming load than the processor is.

errr... Instead of looking at it that way, look at it this way:

Clock speed is becoming less important, especially in gaming, because people and companies (mainly amd not intel) are realizing that a processors power is not measured in ghz. It's about the architechture, and that even with 3.0 + ghz clock speed, you can still get the job done, possibly even more efficiently. Video cards just make all the pretty information, you still needa good processor to put that all together. And without a good processor, well, then you get this [bottleneck]:

It's all about amd's on-die controller. This put's amd ahead of intel in gaming... that's the fuss, not because of 64-bit, because of that on-die controller. THank you. THere is a fuss because games should be smooth, fast, and accurately played... not on some intel's that I've played myself... choppy, and REALLY hot... maybe it was just me... but yeah... amd rox...

__________________

__________________
Macbook Pro and Logitech z5500s. All you really need.